Power in language of the court

The study set out to identify aspects of power asymmetry observed among the discourse participants in the sample trials. It was established that power asymmetry among the participants can be attributed to two things. First, with regard to the first objective of the study which focused on syntax especially on the patterns of questioning in the direct and cross examination phases of trial, the discourse participant roles in the courtroom are pre-allocated, and, as a consequence, power is exercised more by those who take on the role of examiner. This forms a basis for inequality as examiners can make demands to which the witness has to respond. In addition, examiners have more power as they have the most right to speak, to choose the topic, to control the topic and to change the discourse topic. Secondly, there is unequal access to language resources due to inequalities in knowledge and skill. Thus whereas unrepresented accused person can assume the powerful role of the examiner, their inability to access various language resources renders them incapable of exploiting the power an examiner has. The use of pragmatic strategies in the two phases of trial confirms the views in the reviwed literature that direct examination is friendly to the witness as the use of pragmatic strategies during this phase was shown to be achieving collaboration between the witness and the examiner to reconstruct the events that are the subject of litigation. On the other hand, cross examination is a hostile phase of trial, and is characterised use of pragmatic strategies that heighten the combativeness of the exchanges between the examiner and the witness each pursuing divergent goals. It was also established that this collaboration in direct examination and combativeness in cross examination was also reflected in the use to which specific interrogative forms were put. With regard to the third objective on how contributions by witnesses reflect power asymmetry in courtroom discourse, the study confirmed that in both direct and cross examination phases of trial, withness are highly controlled by examiners. This control is achived through a combination of both question forms and pragmatic strategies. As a result, witnesses are powerless parties with their responses being limited in terms of length as well as elaborateness. The study also establishes , that examiners used background contributions by pairing their questions with statements or other questions that witnesses did not get opportunity to react to. Such contributions are further evidence of the power imbalance in courtroom discourse.